r/law • u/bendubberley_ • 15h ago

Legal News The judge in the Lindsay Clancy case is admonishing jurors who are refusing to follow his instructions

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

237

u/Widespreaddd 12h ago

This is the system, and it swings both ways. iirc during the O.J. trial, one or more jurors were clear from the start of deliberations that they would never vote guilty. I don’t know if others were persuaded or caved.

55

u/Zealousideal-Age768 8h ago

That jury deliberated for less than 4 hours...  They were so done with that trial after being sequestered for 265 days.

Can't say I blame them even though I think its reasonable to say they got the verdict wrong.

18

u/OctinoxateAndZinc 7h ago

I think its reasonable to say they got the verdict wrong.

understatement lol

3

u/drleebot 1h ago

Hell, even O.J. said they got it wrong.

Sorry, "If they got it wrong."

1

u/Special_Purpose2903 0m ago

Based on what, many top experts and journalist like Linda Deutsch for the AP or Joseph Bosco "A Problem of evidence", or Donald Freed and Stephen Singulair who cover crime and trials for a living agreed with the jury decision. People who didn't pay attention to the trial and the expert witnesses evidence don't understand why 4 hours was more than enough to persuade any reasonable jury OJ was not guilty. They also forget the grand jury refused to indict him - so the prosecutor moved the case to a different venue and sought an indictment from a judge with no grand jury and even the civil trial wasn't unanimous against OJ.

The main reason why acquitting OJ was reasonable, was the prosecutor gave a literally impossible timeline, that no one believed. Worse off the officers evidence had suggested heavily that the double murder took place within 45 minutes of officer riske arriving on the scene, but OJ had been gone from town by close to 2 hours by that point documented on camera. Jury really had no choice but to acquit.

1

u/TotallyRealAccount9 6h ago

They literally have come out and said they knew he was guilty but voted not guilty because he was black and revenge for Rodney king

The literal only reason OJ was a free man was racism

4

u/Key_Bike4978 3h ago

It was more revenge not racism. That didn't make the verdict right though. The Rodney King verdict was shocking. 

2

u/rpolkcz 1h ago

No, it's racism.

-2

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

and we're doing it again :)

OJ for women

45

u/alinroc 8h ago

At least one juror said the verdict was in response to what happened to Rodney King

2

u/DMUrTinyTitsAssFeet1 7h ago

And she wasn't wrong tbh

14

u/Lefthandmitten 7h ago edited 7h ago

Though I understand what you’re trying to say, that’s not how it works…

A person of a certain race cannot murder someone of another race in cold blood and go free because of things that happened in the past, no matter how bad the past was.

A Jewish person cannot murder a German person and not be found guilty. 

A Chinese person cannot murder a Japanese person and not be found guilty. 

A Native American person cannot murder a black person and not be found guilty.  

2

u/mr_ryh 7h ago

I agree with you it shouldn't happen, but it does and will continue to do so, especially in multiracial societies with historical grievances. For similar reasons, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore abolished the jury system in 1969, based on his first-hand experiences of how unjust it was.

Of course, this entire discussion is academic, if only because abolishing the jury system in the US would require a Constitutional amendment, which is basically impossible in this country now.

6

u/TotalNonsense0 6h ago

You keep saying "cannot."

I don't think that means what you think it means.

-1

u/scared_and_afrayed 7h ago

how long are you going to pretend they don't think that way

4

u/UniCBeetle718 1h ago

I don't think it's right for a chronic domestic violence victim and her family to be robbed of justice just because her rich murderer husband was of a particular race... 

49

u/-GuyDeLombard- 9h ago

Seems a lot of the comments have some resentment for the juror holding out. And I agree with you. That’s the right of a juror. And that’s how proof beyond a reasonable doubt works. So call it a mistrial and either start over or move on.

22

u/Any-Worldliness-679 6h ago

That's where REASONABLE is supposed to trump some dummy's "gut feeling."

"Tom was on video shopping for groceries at the time of the murder."

"Yeah, but I feel like he still could have done it..."

See how that is not reasonable?

1

u/local6962 4h ago

twist: the murder happened in the grocery store

1

u/NoSloppyStakes 3h ago

twist 2: the groceries did it

10

u/jlauth 7h ago edited 7h ago

It's because the juror in this case is literally not listening to the courts instructions related to reasonable doubt. We don't know the details of the letter at this time but we know that the jury foreperson delivered a letter which initiated the judge to ask each juror if they were able to follow the law. And then the instructions were rerrad to all of them. Follow the this both the defense and the judge mentioned an 11/1 split. I don't want to assume but the fact that a letter with those details was sent to the court might mean that this juror actually said they wouldn't follow the law or didn't care to the other jurors.

4

u/jellobowlshifter 6h ago

Or, it could be that the foreman's note to the judge was emotional and factually incorrect. You're assuming that the foreman is being objective.

1

u/Canon_M50 6h ago

Here's a truth bomb: jurors don't have to follow the judge's instructions. They can decide based on anything. That's why prosecutors have 98% plea deal rate.

3

u/Mkwdr 4h ago

If the instructions are about how the law works and a juror ignores them and isnt following the law then presumably that would be grounds for a mistrial? In that respect they have to follow instruction or be dismissed as a jury?

2

u/TakenIsUsernameThis 5h ago

Jurors have the freedom to do that, but its not a right. The mere lack of legal constraints doesn't mean a legal right is being conferred.

20

u/Famous-Outside-3006 8h ago

Yeah a juror threw up a black power symbol when the trial concluded. That jury was corrupted by personal bias and media tainting just like this one.

1

u/MikuEmpowered 4h ago

Probably caved.

They were stuck, and sequestered for 265 fking days.

When its that long, its a really a question of how strong their personal beliefs are.